Pages

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Did Luther Think Mary Was Queen of Heaven?

[To the left: a bit of propaganda from one of Rome's defenders]
Here's one I recently came across on the CARM boards: When did Mary become queen of heaven? After a Lutheran participant admitted Luther could be wrong about believing particular Marian doctrines, a defender of Rome asked, "... have any of the various Lutheran denominations denounced their founder's acknowledgment that Mary is Queen of Heaven?" The assumption put forth is that Luther, his entire life, taught, believed, and was overly explicit that Mary was to be regarded as "Queen of Heaven." As we'll see, this assumption is not supported by the extant documents. The "various Lutheran denominations" have nothing to denounce about Luther using the title "Queen of Heaven" in regard to Mary.

The Research Methods of Rome's Defenders
If one does a simple Google search on this, it becomes readily apparent that many of Rome's defenders haven't done any meaningful (or in some cases, actual) research into Luther's use of the title "Queen of Heaven." Consider this example:

Modern Protestants object to calling Mary as “Queen of Heaven” because according to them, the title is pagan and is hateful to God. Before I respond to this to the issue, I just wish to remark that Martin Luther, the originator of Protestantism, Martin Luther admitted that the title “Queen of Heaven” is “a true enough name and yet does not make her a goddess.”[1] In fact, the instigator of the Reformation went as far as calling Mary “more than an empress or a queen.”[2][1] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia) 24:327, cited in Fr. Mateo,Refuting the Attack on Mary (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999) p. 67. [2] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia) 36:208; 45:107, cited in Fr. Mateo, Refuting the Attack on Mary (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999) p. 110.

While I don't plan on purchasing Fr. Mateo's book to check out these secondary citations, both footnotes presented here are erroneous. Both footnotes claim to be to the English edition of Luther's Works. Footnote #1 is actually from LW 21:327 (Luther's exposition of the Magnificat), not LW 24. It's also interesting that the quote from Luther doesn't end at the word "goddess" (as will be explained below). In Footnote #2, LW 36:208 has nothing to do with Mary. LW 45:107 appears to be a botched citation from the Weimar edition of Luther's works. The "empress or a queen" comment is often documented as WA 45, 105, 7 to 106, 1. The quote probably made its way into cyberspace by one of Rome's defenders using Max Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church (London: The Faith Press, 1963), p.80. We'll see with this quote that Luther isn't calling Mary "Queen of Heaven" here.

The Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli
Of the works of Luther that I've dealt with over the years, I rarely have come across Luther using the title "Queen of Heaven" in regard to Mary. The reason why is because "Queen of Heaven" was directly associated with the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli.* The Salve Regina states:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To you we cry, the children of Eve; to you we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this land of exile. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us; lead us home at the beginning and show us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus: O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Amen.

Also relevant to Luther's time period was the Marian hymn, the Regina Coeli:

Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia. The Son whom you merited to bear, alleluia. Has risen, as He said, alleluia. Pray for us to God, alleluia. V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia. R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia. Let us pray. O God, who through the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ gave rejoicing to the world, grant, we pray, that through his Mother, the Virgin Mary, we may obtain the joy of everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here I must say a few words about the song which is called Salve Regina. It is a great blaspheme of God. For it says, "Hail you queen of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope." Is that not too much? Who could justify calling her our life, sweetness and mercy when she is satisfied to call herself, a "handmaiden of the LORD?" Now people sing that prayer in every corner of the world and also the bells ring out, and still today in nearly every church the Salve Regina is, unfortunately, retained and sung.
It is the same with the Regina Coeli, which is not much better, in which she is called the queen of heaven. Is that not doing Christ a disservice when you account to a creature what only belongs to and is proper to God? So forget these ungodly and unchristian words. I will gladly concede that Mary prays for me, but I deny that she must be my comfort and my life. Your prayer on my behalf is also just as precious to me and hers. Why? If you believe that Christ dwells just as much in you as He does her, your prayer can help me just as well as hers. [The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, 105-106].

In the sermon of March 11, 1523 (yet untranslated in English, documented by William Cole) Luther wants "devotion to Mary" "entirely abolished because of the abuses" (WA 3, 312 ff; cf. Cole, 189). Cole says, "It is quite clear that [Luther] includes the Salve Regina as one of the abuses" (Cole, 189). Cole also documents another sermon (1524, WA 15, 115, 13f) in which "Luther refers to the Salve Regina as blasphemous inasmuch as the name of life and hope is taken away from Christ in favor of Mary and Mary is made into a goddess with her feasts and antiphons" (Cole, 189). Also documented by Cole is that Luther attributes the title "queen of mercy" to the church rather than something which is to be sung about Mary (Cole, 189; LW 12:261). Cole points out though that Luther is not necessarily against calling Mary a "Queen," but that the Roman church had made her into an idol (Cole, 189-190).

Mary is "more than an empress or a queen"
As mentioned above, this quote was probably taken from a secondary source. The actual source, WA 45:105, 7 to 106, 1 can be found here. I know of no official English translation for this Latin / German page. Of the secondary translation that is available, Thurian states:

"...then on another Feast of the Visitation, July 2.1537, Luther said: 'When the Virgin received the acclamation of Elizabeth as being the blessed Mother of God, because she had believed and because all was coming to pass as the angel had spoken, she was not filled with pride by this praise which no other woman had ever yet spoken to her—this immense praise: "No woman is like unto thee! you are more than an empress or a queen! you are more than Eve or Sarah; blessed above all nobility, wisdom or saintliness!" No, she was not filled with pride by this lofty, excellent and super-abundant praise ...' " [Weimar, 45: 105, 7 to 106, 1].

What's interesting to me is that Luther is not calling Mary the "Queen of Heaven" here, but is rather embellishing the praise given to Mary by Elizabeth, and even Elizabeth (in Luther's words) isn't calling her "Queen of Heaven" but saying Mary is "more than an empress or a queen."

"Queen of Heaven" is a true-enough name...
The only explicit positive quote (I know of) in which Luther refers to Mary as "Queen of Heaven" comes from Luther's treatment of the Magnificat (1521). There Luther states:

It is no valid argument against this to cite the words of the hymn “Regina coeli laetare,” “Whom thou didst merit to bear,” and again, “Whom thou wast worthy to bear.” For the same things are sung about the holy cross, which was a thing of wood and incapable of merit. The words are to be understood in this sense: In order to become the Mother of God, she had to be a woman, a virgin, of the tribe of Judah, and had to believe the angelic message in order to become worthy, as the Scriptures foretold.28 As the wood had no other merit or worthiness than that it was suited to be made into a cross and was appointed by God for that purpose, so her sole worthiness to become the Mother of God lay in her being fit and appointed for it; so that it might be pure grace and not a reward, that we might not take away from God’s grace, worship, and honor by ascribing too great things to her. For it is better to take away too much from her than from the grace of God. Indeed, we cannot take away too much from her, since she was created out of nothing, like all other creatures. But we can easily take away too much from God’s grace, which is a perilous thing to do and not well pleasing to her. It is necessary also to keep within bounds and not make too much of calling her “Queen of Heaven,” which is a true-enough name and yet does not make her a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God. She gives nothing, God gives all, as we see in the words that follow.
Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 21: The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 21, pp. 327–328). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Here Luther allows "Queen of Heaven" to be a "true enough name" but qualifies it that even if this name is applied, Mary is not "a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God. She gives nothing."

I anticipate this response from a defender of Rome: Yes, Mary is not a goddess. We agree with Luther. Notice though, the Mary of Luther and the Mary of 16th Century Romanism are different, for in that view, Mary is someone to pray to and flee to who grants gifts- hence, what Luther would call, a goddess. According to Luther, by pouring more into the term "Queen of Heaven" (like the defenders of Rome do), "we can easily take away too much from God’s grace, which is a perilous thing to do and not well pleasing to her." In other words, when Luther here says "Queen of Heaven" "is a true enough name," he does not mean the same thing Rome's defenders do. If there's any agreement here between the defenders of Rome and Luther, it's only surface level.

Keep in mind as well, Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was seen in his day as an attack against popular Marian piety, and is a transitional work in Luther's Mariology not entirely reflective of his later thought (Roman Catholic scholar Thomas O'Meara, reaches the same conclusion: Mary in Protestant and Catholic Thought, 116-117). In chronological order, Luther's 1521 admitting a use of "Queen of Heaven" is followed by 1522's "doing Christ a disservice" if one uses the title. Then for the rest of Luther's career, the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli were to be avoided as blasphemous.

14 comments:

If you have any documentation for Luther thinking "God was the rightful Queen of Heaven" I would be interested in seeing it.

Duet. 10:14 describes God as the supreme ruler of the highest heavens and earth, so it appears to me that the office of "queen of heaven" is superfluous at best, and at worst thinking there is such a office /title in the heavenly kingdom is a limiting anthropomorphism of a heavenly reality.

Do you want me to demonstrate this or are you already familiar with this?

Guy,

I've noticed a lot of your argumentation is typical Roman Catholic pop-apologetic stuff, most I'm quite familiar with (like the Rev. 12 dispute). I've noticed as well you post comments on my entries that attempt to have a different conversation than the main points of the blog entry. I'm assuming this is because you have no (or little) knowledge in Luther / Reformation studies- so therefore you want to reinvent the wheel and have the same tired old discussion that's typical of Protestant / Romanist interactions.

If you feel compelled to post a comment, would you please actually directly interact with this blog entry? How about commenting, for instance, on your fellow defenders of Rome and their propaganda about Luther in regard to this issue? Do you support your fellow defenders of Rome in their inability to actually do historical research on the Reformation? Do you have any information or argumentation that supports their conclusion that Luther held a lifelong belief that Mary was "Queen of Heaven"?

As I stated elsewhere, I'm nowhere near as patient as Steve and the other guys. With my time in cyberspace, I pick and choose what to interact with, and following one of your pop-apologetic tangents that's been beaten to death on other blogs and discussion boards really doesn't interest me.

"...I understand Luther had a fear of lightning ( along with other childish phobias ). St. Anne was one of the saints invoked for protection from death by lightning."

Apparently, Guy views fear of death by lightning as a "childish phobia" and disapproves of invoking saints to protect from such a death. Surprisingly, I find myself in agreemment with Guy on this point.

"I do have Fr. Mateo's book right here. On page 67 he says, 'Although Martin Luther was somewhat nervous about applying the title "Queen of Heaven" to Mary he admits that "it is a true enough name and yet does not make her a goddess.' He then references LW21:327."

So the misattribution of the reference occurred in the citation of Mateo's work by the RC apologist rather than in the citation by Fr. Mateo of Pelikan's work.

But that's part of James' point: Many RC apologists use sloppy research methods to formulate their arguments. The misattribution of the citation in question is one example. Another is the inaccurate quotation of the citation in question: “more than an empress or a queen.” As James has pointed out the quotation in LW does not end where the RC apologist citing says it ends but goes instead to deny that Mary is available to render aid to those invoking her. It appears based on your confirmation of Fr. Mateo's citation that the selective quotation appears in Mateo's book as well. That represents poor research on Mateo's part. James showed that the quotation from Pelikan's work goes on providing more context that negates the meaning of the truncated quotation provided by Mateo. I'm not going to infer motive, but at a minimum that's sloppy.

You have Mateo's book so you can see for yourself if the RC apologist correctly cited the passage from Mateo's book. But James has indentified the second footnote as a likely "quotation" from a different work than is footnoted, which has already been identified as being an incorrect citation in its own right.

"I can either accept his scholarship or I can accept yours."

If the RC apologist has quoted Mateo accurately and Mateo has quoted his sources inaccurately or in a misleading fashion and James has identified the correct sources and provided the full context for the quotes in question and Mateo did not, then yes the choice should be simple. I agree with you.

"However, and I have asked James this question before and don't think he bothered to answer it, namely, why have Protestants gone way beyond their forefathers in renouncing everything about Mary including the title of Theotokos and her Perpetual Virginity?"

Guy, how is any of what you wrote responsive to either my post or of the original post?

Guy wrote:"However, and I have asked James this question before and don't think he bothered to answer it, namely, why have Protestants gone way beyond their forefathers in renouncing everything about Mary including the title of Theotokos and her Perpetual Virginity?"

not "everything", so that is a false charge.

we believe in the Biblical Mary, and stand on her being a virgin before Jesus was born - Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:25. Luke 1:26-35

We believe in what the Scriptural texts say about Mary.

It is important to reject the Perpetual virginity of Mary because it has Gnostic underpinnings and contributed to centuries of the Roman Catholic Church having a distorted view of sex, even within marriage. It resulted in exalting virginity over marriage; and implies a works-righteousness orientation.

"Theotokos" originally meant to say that Mary was bearing God when Jesus was born; that is, He was always God. It was more about Jesus than Mary. The RCC over-exalted Mary after that idea and ran with it in history. But Nestorius was right in that people will misunderstand, which is exactly what happened and what still happens today in that Muslims think RCs are saying Mary brought God into existence (by the term "Mother of God"; yet they also still think we are saying God had sex with Mary (like Mormons). Nestorius was wrong to so emphasize the two natures so as to seem like Jesus was 2 persons, but his work he wrote at the end of his life, The Bazaar of Hericlides, he agrees with Leo 1st's tome and the Council of Chalcedon.

guy fawkes said...James,I do have Fr. Mateo's book right here. On page 67 he says, "Although Martin Luther was somewhat nervous about applying the title "Queen of Heaven" to Mary he admits that "it is a true enough name and yet does not make her a goddess." He then references LW21:327.I can either accept his scholarship or I can accept yours.

Wow, Guy- you actually posted something relevant to this blog post. Well done!

Where do you see Fr. Mateo claiming what you says he claims? He says Luther was "nervous" about praising Mary.

Guy, it appears you did not read my entry carefully. Because I don't want to pull you away from your creative writing and comments, please note the following:

"While I don't plan on purchasing Fr. Mateo's book to check out these secondary citations, both footnotes presented here are erroneous."

The content I was reviewing was from a defender of Rome (much like yourself) that was posting about Luther's use of "Queen of Heaven." I hope this clears things up for you.

As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies, I think I know as much if not more than you do. But I am not interested in that sort of petty showing off.

Rumor has it that he said Christ had relations with Magdalene, the woman at the well and the woman taken in adultery. However, Lutheran Luther scholars are quick to explain he was probably drunk when he said it during one of his Table Talks so it shouldn't count against him

OK, well, I'm always willing to learn from people who know more than I do about the Reformation. Please enlighten me as to which "Lutheran Luther scholars are quick to explain he was probably drunk when he said it"?

You were the one claiming "As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies, I think I know as much if not more than you do. But I am not interested in that sort of petty showing off."

Then I request a few nuggets of your knowledge and you send me off on Google search to verify facts you say are accurate.

Recall, a few weeks ago I stated the following to you:

Guy, if you bring a fact to the table and someone asks you for further information about it (like either a source or a context), it's not up to us to search every corner of the Internet to verify your fact. In polite and honest discourse, the burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim.

If you want to give the appearance that you're clueless, well, that's your choice. It actually doesn't really matter because you're anonymous. You can continue to make any number of ridiculous claims and insults, and then disappear back into cyberspace, or pick a new anonymous screen name.

"He that has ever so little examined the citations of writers cannot doubt how little credit the quotations deserve when the originals are wanting"

xx

Looking for an Obscure Luther Quote?Chances are if you've wound up on this site, you're looking for information on an obscure quote said to come from Martin Luther or one of the other Protestant Reformers. This blog has been compiling information on obscure Reformation quotes for over a decade. Use the search engines below to look for your particular obscure quote.

Search Beggars All #1

Search Beggars All #2

Recent Comments

“Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles...“We are beggars. That is true.” - Martin Luther

"It is true that the best apologetics can be given only when the system of truth is well known. But it is also true that the system of truth is not well known except it be seen in its opposition to error."- Cornelius Van Til

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin

"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin

Currently on my Shelf...

Find new books and literate friends with Shelfari, the online book club.

This is the best book available on Sola Scriptura. For Protestants, it will help you understand and defend sola scriptura. For Catholics, this book will help you understand exactly what Protestants mean by sola scriptura, rather than what you think it means. I highly recommend getting this book, it never leaves my desk, and serves as a valuable reference tool.